"People got in their head, well, if it's man-made somehow
it's potentially dangerous, but if it's natural, it isn't. That doesn't
really fit with anything we know about toxicology. When we understand how
animals are resistant to chemicals, the mechanisms are all independent of
whether it's natural or synthetic. And in fact, when you look at natural
chemicals, half of those tested came out positive [for toxicity in humans]."
--Bruce Ames

"I'm
going to live to be 100 unless I'm run down by a sugar-crazed taxi driver." --J.
I. Rodale, a father of the organic movement who died of a heart attack
at age 72 while taping an episode of "The Dick Cavett Show" shortly
after announcing "I’ve decided to live to be a hundred" and "I never felt
better in my life!" The show never aired. [For those who think this is a
cheap shot: this kind of
wishful thinking
is common among the defenders of all things organic.]

key myths and beliefs

Organic food is food produced by organic
farming, a set of techniques based on anti-scientific beliefs, myths, and
superstition.

A key belief of groups like the
International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and the
Soil Association, which oppose
conventional farming in favor of organic farming, is that pesticides and
fertilizers are so harmful that they should be avoided unless they are "natural."
This belief is contradicted by the vast majority of scientific studies that
have been done on these subjects (Morris and Bate 1999; Taverne 2006;
NCPA study). The
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has put in place a set of
national standards that food labeled "organic" must meet, whether it is
grown in the United States or imported from other countries. "USDA makes no
claims that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than
conventionally produced food. Organic food differs from conventionally
produced food in the way it is grown, handled, and processed."*

Harm from bacterial contamination is a
much greater possibility from natural fertilizers (Stossel
2005: 194). (For those of you who hate John Stossel, read the
newspaper. The most dangerous bacteria in America’s food supply is E.
coli, which is found in abundance in cattle manure, a favorite "natural"
fertilizer of organic farming.)

The residues from pesticides on food,
natural or synthetic, are not likely to cause harm to consumers because they
occur in minute quantities.* (This fact does not make either kind of pesticide safe for
those who work with them and are exposed to large quantities on a regular
basis. I refer to residues on foods you and I are likely to find on
fruits and vegetable we buy at the store or market.) Using natural
biological controls rather than synthetic pesticides is more dangerous
to the environment (Morris and Bate 1999). The amounts of pesticide residue
produced by plants themselves or introduced by organic farmers are
significantly greater than the amounts of synthetic pesticide residues.
Almost all of the pesticides we ingest in food are naturally produced by
plants to defend themselves against insects, fungi, and animal predators (Ames
and Gold 1997). The bottom line is that fresh fruits and vegetables are
good for you and it doesn't matter whether they're organic.

Over 30 separate investigations of about
500,000 people have shown that farmers, millers, pesticide-users, and
foresters, occupationally exposed to much higher levels of pesticide than
the general public, have much lower rates of cancer overall (Taverne 2006: 73.)

Groups like IFOAM refer to synthetic pesticides as "toxic,"
even though the amount of pesticides people are likely to ingest through
food are always
in non-toxic amounts. Many toxic substances
occur naturally in foods, e.g.,arsenic in meat, poultry, dairy products, cereals, fish, and shellfish, but usually in doses so small as not to be
worthy of concern. On the IFOAM website you will find the following message:

Although IFOAM has no official position on the quality of
organic food, it's easy to conclude that the overall nutritional and
health-promoting value of food is compromised by farming methods that
utilize synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides.

It's easy to conclude—as long as you
ignore the bulk of the scientific evidence that is available.

the myth of
organic superiority

The evidence for the superiority of organic food is
mostly anecdotal
and based more on irrational assumptions and wishful thinking than on hard
scientific evidence. There is no significant difference between a natural molecule and one created in the
laboratory. Being natural or
organic does not make a substance safe* nor does being
synthetic make a substance unsafe. Organic food does not offer special protection against cancer or
any other disease. Organic food is not "healthier" than food produced by
conventional farming, using synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Organic
farming is not necessarily better for the environment than conventional
farming. There is scant scientific evidence that most people can tell
the difference in taste between organic and conventional foods. The bottom
line is: fresher is better. Organic produce that travels thousands of miles
to market is generally inferior to the same produce from local farmers,
organic or not.

Is there any
difference between organic and conventional fruits and vegetables? According
to
one scientific paper, there are several differences:

Based on the results of our literature review and experiment
we conclude that there are substantial differences between organic and
conventional fruits and vegetables. They differ with respect to
production method, labeling, marketing, price and potentially other
parameters.

You don't need to do a scientific study to know that organic
foods are produced differently from conventionally farmed foods. Anyone who
has been to the market knows that you will pay substantially more for food
labeled "organic." Marketing of organic foods banks on perpetuating the myth
that organic means safer, healthier, and tastier. One thing it means is
"growing business." Even Wal-Mart wants in on the action. "While organic
food is still just 2.4 percent of the overall food industry, it has been
growing at least 15 percent a year for the last 10 years. Currently valued
at $14 billion, the organic food business is expected to increase to $23
billion over the next three years, though that figure could rise further
with Wal-Mart's push."*
European markets are also growing.*

The aforementioned scientific study did find that the
literature provides evidence for one nutritional difference between
organic and conventional foods: vitamin C was found to be higher for organic
food.

coddling by the media

The way the media treat "green" issues accounts for one
reason that the organic-is-better myth is pervasive. Here's an example from
BBC News:

Growing apples organically is not only better for the environment than
other methods but makes them taste better than normal apples, US
scientists say.

The study is among the first to give scientific credence to the claim
that organic farming really is the better option.

The researchers found organic cultivation was more sustainable than
either conventional or integrated farming, which cuts the use of
chemicals.

The scientists, from Washington State University in Pullman, found the
organic apples were rated highest for sweetness by amateur tasting panels.

Most people might stop reading the story after five paragraphs of nothing
but positive statements about organic farming and the mention of a number of
problems ahead for conventional farming. For those who persevere, however,
the following bits of information are also provided:

...the tests "found no differences among organic, conventional and
integrated apples in texture or overall acceptance".

...Growers of more sustainable systems may be unable
to maintain profitable enterprises without economic incentives, such as
price premiums or subsidies for organic and integrated products.

Apparently, the measure used to determine that organic farming was
"better for the environment" was based on physical, chemical, and biological
soil properties. The scientists created their own index and found that
organic was better mainly because of the addition of compost and mulch.
Certainly, there are going to be some organic farms that use methods of
composting and mulching that improve growing conditions. But there are also
methods conventional farmers can use to accomplish the same thing. Finally,
there are some organic farmers who used methods of composting and mulching
that don't improve anything except the chances of bacterial
infection. Only a "green" journalist or scientist could turn being
less efficient, posing greater health risks, no different in texture or
appearance, and producing half the yields of conventional farming into
"better than conventional farming."

I'll provide just one more example of how the media and scientists with
agendas distort the results of scientific studies that compare organic with
conventional agricultural practices. In 2003, Alyson Mitchell, Ph.D., a food
scientist at the University of California, Davis, co-authored a paper with
the formidable title of "Comparison
of the Total Phenolic and Ascorbic Acid Content of Freeze-Dried and
Air-Dried Marionberry, Strawberry, and Corn Grown Using Conventional,
Organic, and Sustainable Agricultural Practices." The article was
published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a
peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society. The article got some
good press from "green" journalists, who proclaimed that the study showed
that organic foods have significantly higher levels of antioxidants than
conventional foods. (Examples of glowing press reports can be found
here,
here, and
here.) There is a strong belief among promoters of organic foods that there is good scientific support for the claim that diets rich
in antioxidants contribute to significantly lower cancer rates. The data, however, do not support this belief. “Study after study has shown no benefit of antioxidants for heart disease, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or longevity” (Hall 2011).

The study compared total phenolic metabolites and ascorbic acid in only
two crops, marionberries and corn. Both crops were grown organically and conventionally on
different farms. The organic berries were grown on land that had been used for
growing berries for four
years; the conventional berries were grown on land that had been used to grow
conventional berries for 21-22 years.
The crops were grown on different soil types: the organic soil was "sandy,
clay, loam"; the conventional was "sandy, Ritzville loam." The soil for
the conventional corn had been used before for wheat; the soil for the
organic corn had been used for green beans. The conventional farm used well
water; the organic farm used a combination of well and creek water. (I don't
mention the strawberry listed in the title of the article because no organic
strawberries were tested.) As you can tell from the title of the article,
the metabolites measured were not taken from fresh berries or corn but from
samples that had been freeze-dried and air-dried. Though not mentioned in
the title, the scientists also compared samples that were simply frozen.

The data provided by the authors in their published study shows clearly
that there was not enough measurable ascorbic acid (AA) in either of the
marionberry samples to compare the organic to the conventional. As already
noted, no organic strawberries were studied. There was not enough measurable
AA for the freeze-dried or air-dried corn to be compared. So, the only data
on AA is for the frozen corn: organic had a value of 3.2 and conventional
had a value of 2.1. You can read the study yourself to find out what these
numbers represent, but whatever they represent they do not merit the
conclusion drawn by the authors of the study: "Levels of AA in organically
grown ... samples were consistently higher than the levels for the
conventionally grown crops."

The study also compared what it calls "sustainable agricultural
practices" to organic and conventional practices. Sustainable practices in this study
included the use of synthetic fertilizers. "Our results indicate," the
authors write, "that TPs [total phenolics] were highest in the crops grown
by sustainable agricultural methods as compared to organic methods." Dr.
Mitchell is quoted in the press as saying that their study "helps explain
why the level of antioxidants is so much higher in organically grown food."
Yet, her study clearly states that the evidence for this claim is anecdotal.
In fact, the authors write of the comparative studies that have been done:

These data demonstrate inconsistent differences in the nutritional
quality of conventionally and organically produced vegetables with the
exception of nitrate and ascorbic acid (AA) in vegetables.

distortion of evidence by
scientists

One thing these "green" advocates are good at is distorting data to make
lead appear to be gold.
Another study led by Mitchell claims that organic tomatoes have
"statistically higher levels (P < 0.05) of quercetin and kaempferol
aglycones" than conventional tomatoes. The increase of these flavonoids corresponds "with reduced manure application
rates once soils in the organic systems had reached equilibrium levels of
organic matter." In fact, the study suggests that it is the nitrogen "in the
organic and conventional systems that most strongly influence these
differences." The authors suggest that "overfertilization (conventional or
organic) might reduce health benefits from tomatoes." The argument is that
the flavonoids are a protective response by the plants and one of the things
they respond to is the amount of nitrogen in the soil. In any case, the
thrust of these and similar studies is that both organic and conventional
crops can be manipulated to yield higher levels of antioxidants. At least
one study has found "organic food products have a higher total antioxidant
activity and bioactivity than the conventional foods."*
That study, however, involved only ten
Italian men, aged 30-65 years.

I have to say that I am underwhelmed by the studies
I have reviewed that claim to have found organic foods are more nourishing
or healthy than conventional fruits and vegetables. At present, there is no
strong body of scientific evidence that supports the contention that organic
fruits and vegetables are superior to conventional produce. A best case
scenario for the organic folks would be that to achieve
the recommended
nutrients from five helpings a day of fruits or vegetables you might have to
eat four or five more conventionally grown strawberries or two or three more baby
carrots to get the same amount of vitamins, minerals, or antioxidants as
provided by organic fruits and vegetables. But I'm not sure the evidence
supports even that weak position.

The latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey shows
that the average fruit and vegetable consumption among adults aged 19 to
64 years living in private households in Great Britain is less than 3
portions a day. [Most Americans get only 3 servings of fruits and
vegetables a day, not including potatoes.*]
Overall only 13% of men and 15% of women consume five or more portions
of fruit and vegetables a day. Consumption tends to be lower among
younger adults, children and people on low incomes. For example, in the
survey young men only averaged 1.3 portions per day compared with 3.6
portions by the oldest group of men.*

The term 'organic' as a descriptor for certain sustainable
agriculture systems appears to have been used first by Lord Northbourn in his book Look to the Land (1940). "Northbourn
used the term to describe farming systems that focused on the farm as a
dynamic, living, balanced, organic whole, or an organism."*
The term 'organic' was first widely used in the U.S. by J. I. Rodale, founder
of Rodale Press, in the 1950s. "Rodale failed to convince scientists of the
validity of his approach because of his reliance on what were perceived to
be outrageous unscientific claims of organic farming's benefits."*

The USDA standards for organic food state:

Organic food is produced without using most conventional
pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge;
bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.

These standards capture the essence of the organic
mythology:

Conventional pesticides should be avoided.

Synthetic fertilizers should be avoided.

Food should not be genetically altered.

Food should not be subjected to ionizing radiation.

The bit about sewage sludge is there because some organic
farmers follow the "law of return" as proposed by
Sir Albert Howard (1873-1947), a founder and pioneer of the organic
movement. He advocated recycling all organic waste materials,
including sewage sludge, in farmland compost. The practice of adding human
and animal feces to the soil is an ancient practice found in many cultures
even today.
The fact that these cultures developed their practices without benefit of
modern knowledge of such things as bacteria or heavy metals is trumped by the romantic
notion that farm life was idyllic in those times and places when life
expectancy was half that of today.

Rudolf Steiner, the founder of a set of
superstitious agricultural practices known as
biodynamics, also advocated
using manure as fertilizer but it had to be prepared according to a
magical formula
based on his belief that cosmic forces entered animals through their horns.
Steiner also romanticized farming. Commenting on
some peasants stirring up manure, he said: "I have always had the opinion
... that [the peasants'] alleged stupidity or foolishness is wisdom before
God [sic], that is to say, before the Spirit. I have always considered what the
peasants and farmers thought about their things far wiser than what the
scientists were thinking."*
Steiner gave lectures on farming, but did no scientific research to test his
ideas.

A central concept of these lectures was to "individualize"
the farm by bringing no or few outside materials onto the farm, but
producing all needed materials such as manure and animal feed from within
what he called the "farm organism." Other aspects of biodynamic farming
inspired by Steiner's lectures include timing activities such as planting in
relation to the movement patterns of the moon and planets and applying
"preparations," which consist of natural materials which have been processed
in specific ways, to soil, compost piles, and plants with the intention of
engaging non-physical beings and elemental forces. Steiner, in his lectures,
encouraged his listeners to verify his suggestions scientifically, as he had
not yet done.*

Steiner opposed the use of synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides, not on scientific grounds but on spiritual grounds. He claimed
there were "spiritual shortcomings in the whole chemical approach to
farming."*
He had a mystical idea of the farm as an organism, "a closed self-nourishing
system."*

Genetic Engineering is imprecise and unpredictable. By inserting genes
from organisms that have never been eaten as food, new proteins are
introduced into the human and animal food chains. There is concern that
these could cause allergic reactions or other health effects. In 1996, for
example, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (a seed company now owned by
DuPont) developed a genetically engineered soybean using a gene from a
Brazil nut to increase the protein content of its animal feed. Independent
tests on the GE soybean revealed that people allergic to Brazil nuts
reacted to the engineered soybean.

Scientists are unable to predict whether a particular protein will be a
food allergen if ingested by humans. A genetically engineered food supply
is therefore a major gamble with human health.

Beware of new proteins! What FOE doesn't say is that all GM crops are rigorously tested for
toxins and allergens before being licensed for use. The Brazil nut is full
of nutrients and the gene could be a source of cheap nutrition for people in
poor countries. A small biotech firm explored the possibility of
transferring the gene but dropped the idea when scientists pointed out "that
it was unwise to transfer a gene from a nut with known allergenic potential
into food." Later, Pioneer Hi-Bred revived the project for animal feed,
tested the product for human allergic reaction, published their results, and
abandoned the project. (Taverne 2006: 112). FOE's claim that genetic
engineering is imprecise and unpredictable is misguided. The scientific
process was very precise. The idea behind testing is to see what happens: if
everything were predictable there wouldn't be any need for the tests! The
only major gamble in this process is by the company putting up the research
funds. If the product turns out to be an allergen, the product is not
developed.

FOE also claims

Many genetically engineered foods contain genes that code for
resistance to commonly used antibiotics. Genes that encode
antibiotic-resistance are used as "markers" to show which cells have taken
up foreign genes. Though they have no further use, they remain present in
plant tissue.

The presence of antibiotic genes in foods is a potential health risk.
Genes for antibiotic resistance could be passed onto the bacteria in the
guts of humans and animals, making antibiotics ineffective in the case of
illness. Such a scenario would be very serious as hospitals are already
reporting increased incidences of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

The fear that genes for antibiotic resistance in GM foods will take up
residence in our guts and make antibiotics ineffective is
not supported by
the scientific evidence (Taverne 2006: 111-112). (See especially
this report
and "GM foods
- a case for resistance".) Still, the fear aroused by the thought of the
possibility of some damage being done at some time to somebody led several
scientific groups to recommend that the use of markers for antibiotic
resistance be phased out (Taverne: 112).

Finally, FOE claims:

Genetic engineering could also lead to toxicity of some foods. Genetic
engineers have little control over where a gene is inserted or how many
copies of that gene are inserted into the receiving organism. Modifying
organisms at the genetic level can change the chemical composition of
crops and foods. These changes in chemical composition—changes that are
hard for scientists to predict— could lead to unexpected toxicity of the
"novel" organism.

Actually, genetic engineering means that scientists do
control what genes are inserted in the plants and the insertion is done with
knowledge that leads them to think that there is a good chance that they
will get a particular result. Genetic modification of plants by natural
radiation from cosmic rays or of seeds by irradiation is unpredictable, but
the decision, for example, to put the Bt bacteria gene into cotton was not haphazard and
the predicted result, a strain of cotton that would not need to be sprayed
with pesticide, happened according to plan. The results have been nothing
less that
outstanding.*
Again, FOE doesn't mention that all GM crops undergo rigorous testing before
they are approved for general use. Any dangerous toxicity in GM plants
would be unexpected and would lead to abandonment of the product, unless
developing poison was your goal.

It is true that a study by John E. Losey
et al. of Cornell University published in Nature (not as a
peer-reviewed article but as "scientific correspondence") "showed high
mortality among Monarch larvae that ingested genetically engineered pollen."
This was a laboratory study from which some anti-GM folks inferred that Bt
corn could get into milkweed in the wild (the butterfly's meal of choice)
and devastate the Monarch species. For example, a press release from the
Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) claimed:

The headline for this press release on
CommonDreams.org is identical to the one still posted on the EDF site.
It reads:

Genetic Engineering Kills Monarch Butterflies

The
Sierra Club
also jumped on the bandwagon. However, "an Iowa State University study
by Laura Hansen and John Obrycki showed low mortality even when Monarch
larvae were fed milkweed that had the highest levels of Bt pollen that would
be encountered in the field." Anthony M. Shelton, professor of entomology at
Cornell's New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and
Richard T. Roush of the University of Adelaide, Australia, urged the public
not to be swayed "by laboratory reports that, when looked at with a critical
eye, may not have any reality in the field or even in the laboratory."
Shelton and Roush say it is unlikely that these high Bt pollen levels would
be encountered by the insects in the field, and they say that "few
entomologists or weed scientists familiar with the butterflies or corn
production give credence to the Nature article."*
Dick Taverne writes:

A variety of field studies, as opposed to
laboratory studies commissioned in response to the report in Nature
concluded that the impact of pollen from Bt corn on Monarch
butterflies in the field, as opposed to the artificial conditions of the
laboratory, was negligible and not substantially different from the effect
of conventional corn. (2006: p. 122.)

These studies are ongoing but nobody can promise that no
butterfly will ever be harmed by Bt corn.*

The widespread adoption of GM crops seems likely to
exacerbate the underlying causes of food insecurity, leading to more hungry
people, not fewer. To have a lasting impact on poverty, ActionAid believes
policy makers must address the real constraints facing poor communities -
lack of access to land, credit, resources and markets – instead of focusing
on risky technologies that have no track record in addressing hunger.

Adoption of GM crops is not at all likely
to lead to more hungry people. In fact, as arable land becomes more scarce,
GM crops may be the only hope of feeding the growing world population. It is
patently false to claim that biotechnology has no track record in addressing
hunger. ActionAid

ignores the findings of independent
experts, the Brazilian, Chinese, Indian, and Mexican Academies of Sciences,
the third World Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, USA,
and four separate reports by the Royal Society, as well as the two reports
from the Nuffield Foundation published in 1999 and 2004. (Taverne: 81).

ActionAid relies on Greenpeace for its GM
claims. Unfortunately, Greenpeace does not have a good track record of
fairly presenting the evidence regarding GM crops. One example will have to
suffice. ActionAid cites Greenpeace on the
Golden Rice project, where
genetically modified rice contains β-carotene, a
precursor to Vitamin A. In Golden Rice, two genes from daffodils have been
inserted into the rice genome by genetic engineering to make it synthesize β-carotene, which the body converts to Vitamin A.
(By the way, carrots used to be white or purple. Orange-colored carrots are
the product of a mutation selected by a Dutch horticulturist a few
hundred years ago because it was the color of the Dutch Royal House of
Orange-Nassau.) Golden Rice provides a cheap source of Vitamin A, which is
no big deal in the U.S. but it a very big deal to millions of children in
poorer countries.

ActionAid dismissed the Golden Rice project as
worthless, citing Greenpeace's claim that a child would have to eat about
7kg of cooked Golden Rice each day to obtain an adequate amount of Vitamin
A. The report failed to quote the conclusions of the project's original
researchers, who said that a child would benefit by consuming 200g of rice a
day. The project did not intend to provide the only source of Vitamin
A. (For more on GM food claims by critics see "Response to GM Food Myths" at
AgBioWorld. For another success story on modified rice, see
here.)

extremism in the environmental
movement

One of the founders of Greenpeace,
Patrick Moore, left that
organization and says the environmental movement has been hijacked by
extremists who have little regard for evidence:

People who base their opinion on science
and reason and who are politically centrist need to take the movement back
from the extremists who have hijacked it, often to further agendas that have
nothing to do with ecology. It is important to remember that the
environmental movement is only 30 years old. All movements go through some
mucky periods. But environmentalism has become codified to such an extent
that if you disagree with a single word, then you are apparently not an
environmentalist. Rational discord is being discouraged.*

Another former member of Greenpeace and
Friends of the Earth,
Dick Taverne, has documented the opposition of Greenpeace and other groups to GM
crops in "The Rise of Eco-fundamentalism," chapter six in The March of
Unreason. He likens the organization to religious fundamentalism with
dogma, orthodoxy, heretics, and contempt for the scientific evidence. He's
not the only one who has made such a comparison. Author Michael Crichton has
referred to organic food as Holy Communion, the wafer that unites the saved
("Environmentalism
as Religion"). "This trend began with the DDT campaign," he notes, "and
it persists to this day." Crichton is referring to the campaign largely
fueled by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962).

In defense of Greenpeace,
Stephen Tindale has posted a response to Taverne's criticisms:

Greenpeace has never based its campaigns
solely on science. Cartesian science strips everything down to cold logic:
there is no room for ethics or emotion. We believe, in contrast, that there
is a moral basis for our defense of the natural world....

GM agriculture is a misuse of science
because it entails the release of unstable and potentially harmful life
forms into the environment; once released, they cannot be recalled.

GM crops are not released into the
environment without rigorous testing. To assert that GM agriculture is a
"misuse of science" is reprehensible. It is a use of science whose benefits
should be weighed against its detriments. A general fear that someday,
somewhere, somebody might release something harmful into the environment
does not justify calling GM research a "misuse" of science. There are moral
issues here, but Greenpeace's decision that it is the arbiter of what is
good for the world is a misuse of logic and ethics. The benefits of
biotechnology are well documented. To ignore them and tell scary tales of
potential
Frankenfoods is to misuse the findings and applications of science. The
benefits of biotechnology, such as the potential for raising plants that can
manufacture insulin or antibiotics or can produce plants that eliminate
or greatly reduce the need for synthetic pesticides or herbicides, has to be
weighed against potential harm. To arbitrarily decide that you can ignore
scientific facts and possibilities because you have decided in your infinite
wisdom that GM crops must be stopped to save the world is the height of
arrogance, hubris, and unreason of the same order that we are accustomed to
seeing in fundamentalist religions. Wealthy folks who have plenty of organic
food on the table can't take away freedom of choice from billions of people
and claim the high moral ground if they won't even consider the known
benefits from conventional and GM crops or look at the scientific evidence
relevant to potential harm. As somebody once said, you can't ride the high
horse on the low road.

Consumers may choose to buy organic
fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious
than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does
not support this view.*

The QLIF project co-coordinator Carlo
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence now that
the level of good things is higher in organics," he said.
The Sunday Times reports that the Food Standards Agency is reviewing
the evidence.

Two things concern me about the QLIF study. Going directly to the media and the
public, bypassing the peer review process, is a sign of
voodoo science. Second, having an organic
advocacy group produce the leaflets does not instill confidence that the
studies are objective and unbiased. Even so, I will review the leaflets and
see if there is enough information given to evaluate this research.

I did find
a
summary of one study called "Comparison of the quality of organic and
conventional crops" by Jana Hajšlová et al., Institute of Chemical
Technology, Czech Republic. The report says that comparisons were made, but
no results are given. The study, “Does Organic Offer a Nutrition Edge Over
Conventional Crops,” was published in Environmental Nutrition, on
page 7 (Apr. 2005).*
A one-page study doesn't sound too promising. Much is made in the organic
research community about
producing products with greater amounts of antioxidants, a good idea.
But there is no reason why GM foods couldn't also be produced that increase
the amounts of antioxidants in foods.

The
BBC quoted project co-coordinator Carlo Leifert as saying: "We have
shown there are more of certain nutritionally desirable compounds and less
of the baddies in organic foods, or improved amounts of the fatty acids you
want and less of those you don't want. Our research is trying to find out
where the difference between organic and conventional food comes from." In
other words, Leifert claims it an established fact that organic foods are
superior and his group is trying to explain that superiority. Yet, in one
report he states:

...compositional differences between organic and
conventional foods are relatively small, generally 10-30%, and it is
clearly possible to obtain a nutritious healthy diet with either organic
or conventional plant foods.*

He contends, however, that since people usually don't
eat enough fruit or vegetables, any difference in organic food is a bonus. A
few years ago,
Leifert
resigned from the British government's GM science review panel.
Leifert is
based at the Tesco Centre for Organic Agriculture at Newcastle University.
There is nothing on his web page about a new study being published. I have
e-mailed Dr. Leifert, requesting a copy of any published studies that show
the superiority of organic food. (Read on for his response.) The BBC reports that results of the project
are due to be published over the next 12 months, but some of the leaflets
have been out for more than two years. In other words, it seems that what is
new today is the media blitz, not the study.

Twelve leaflets have already been produced. They do
not appear to be presenting the results of scientific studies so much as
promoting various ideas regarding organic food. Here are descriptions from
six of the pamphlets on the QLIF website:

The leaflet informs consumers on how freshness,
taste and nutrient content of organic products are affected by production,
processing and storage of the products.

The leaflet informs consumers on what is done to
secure authenticity and integrity of organically produced food and what
consumers can do to further support efforts that meet their demands.

The leaflet informs consumers on what is done and
what consumers can do to further control the risks from pathogenic
bacteria, mycotoxins etc. in organic food.

The leaflet informs retailers on what affects the
taste, freshness and nutrient content of organic food and what retailers
can do to support further improvements and ensure the best possible food
quality.

The leaflet informs retailers on what is done to
secure authenticity and integrity of organically produced food and what
retailers can do to further support efforts that meet their costumer's
demands.

The leaflet informs retailers on what is done and
what retailers can do to further preserve food safety until purchase.

Apparently, at present, there is no study or pamphlet
available to the public that would allow us to evaluate the claim that
organic food is superior. We will have to wait for another leaflet or the
book from Blackwell's. Stay tuned. However, my guess is that if Dr. Leifert
and his team of organic proponents had new slam-dunk evidence for the
superiority of organic food, we would be writing about an article published
in a major scientific journal. Instead, we're writing about some media
stories apparently instigated by a group that has been putting out
pro-organic food leaflets for several years.

update (Nov. 2, 2007):
I have heard from Carlo Leifert, who informs me that the recent media
interest was associated with the publication of
the last
QLIF report and the "Handbook of Food Safety and Quality." In his
e-mail, he said the handbook is published by Woodhouse publishing (www.woodhousepublishing.com),
but a review of that site indicates its only interest is in publishing items
about Ogden, Utah. I did find a Handbook of Organic Food
Safety and Quality edited by Julia Cooper and published by
Chipsbooks. Leifert wrote me that the book is available from
CRC Press in America. It is, for a mere $309.95 (as of 9/1/08). According to Leifert, this
Handbook reviews the literature on differences between organic and
conventional foods and includes some early results from the QLIF project. The
blurb on the CRC website says: "This handbook provides comprehensive
coverage of the latest research and best practice in ensuring the safety,
sensory and nutritional quality of foods from organic and low input
production systems to enable professionals to meet consumer demand for safe
and high quality foods." In any case, none of the news stories I read
mentioned any handbook (including
Nature.com and the
Guardian).

Leifert also confirmed my suspicion that, despite the
hype in the news media about new evidence showing that organic is better,
their project "was not so much focused on demonstrating differences between
organic and conventional foods (based on the literature available 4 years ago
we were already convinced that there are systematic differences), but on
identifying which components of the production system contribute to
differences." He refers to the leaflets as "workpackages of the QLIF" and
notes that there are more to come over the next one to two years.

It seems obvious that the bulk of the work of the QLIF
project has had nothing to do with testing the nutritional differences
between organic and conventional crops. Yet, that is the thrust of the
recent flurry of media coverage. QLIF's main focus seems to be to provide
good press for the growing organic food industry to counteract the bad press
it had been getting about the quality of organic foods. In short, the
leaflets are part of a food fight between the proponents of organic crops
and the proponents of conventional, including GM, crops. Even so, there are
three reports in the last QLIF report that address the issue of food quality
in organic as compared to conventional crops.

One report compares organic and conventional tomatoes
grown in Poland that found: "The organic tomato fruits contained more dry
matter, total and reducing sugars, vitamin C, total flavones and
beta-carotene, but less lycopene in
comparison to conventionally grown tomatoes."*

Another compared the quality of organic to
conventional winter wheat in Italy and found: "Organic grain samples
resulted 20% lower in protein content and exhibited poor bread production
qualities."*

One study is called "Influence of Processing on
Bioactive Substances Content and Antioxidant Properties of Apple Purée from
Organic and Conventional Production in Poland." It found "The apple purée
prepared from the organic apples contained significantly more total phenols,
vitamin C, total flavones and showed a higher antioxidant capacity than the
preserves prepared from conventional apples." However, pasteurization
decreased these good things in both types of purée.*

Like I said, I'm underwhelmed. I'm also bothered by
the manipulation of the press. An article dated November 15, 2007, appeared
on
green.msn.com by Deirdre Dolan that passes on the same kind of
misinformation as the BBC. The headline reads: The Proof is In:
Organic is More Nutritious - British studies justify the higher cost.
She claims that "a new study ... shows organic foods have far more
nutritional value" and that "the results will be published over the next
year." Dolan ought to realize that if the results of a study haven't been
published, you don't know what the study proves. In any case, as noted
above, this latest press release from the QLIF project was not a study
comparing organic to conventional foods. The one's doing the study, like
Dolan, are already believers that organic is better. (She tell us she spends
up to $15 a day on organic milk and worries about the toxins in plastics her
child might ingest. She also thinks wooden toys don't have any toxins.
Apparently, she thinks that since wood is natural, unlike plastic, it is
toxin-free. How does she think trees fight off insects? Is she not aware
that wood is often treated with toxic substances?) Dolan is co-author of a
book called The Complete Organic Pregnancy. She seems to take the
word of the QLIF folks without investigating or reading their pamphlets. I
suspect other true believers will cite her article as proof that the
scientific evidence is in and it shows that organic is tastier and
healthier. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think the evidence supports
that claim.

GM insect-resistant crops contain a gene that codes for a bacterial protein that’s toxic to an insect pest, but not animals or people....

Insect-resistant GM corn also decreases human and animal exposure to mycotoxins, highly toxic and carcinogenic compounds made by fungi. The fungi that produce mycotoxins follow insects into plants; insect-resistant plants have no insect holes for fungi to enter and therefore no mycotoxins.

Monsanto developed GM crops that tolerate a nontoxic herbicide called glyphosate, aka Roundup. Herbicide-tolerant crops have made a major contribution to decreasing topsoil loss by facilitating no-till farming. This farming method reduces CO2 emissions from plowing and improves soil quality."

However, "More than one-third of conventional produce had detectable pesticide residues, compared with 7% of organic produce samples. Organic pork and chicken were 33% less likely to carry bacteria resistant to three or more antibiotics than conventionally produced meat."* Geroge Pace (who has written me and others several times to make this point) writes: "The incidence of such contamination was (approximately) 48% for conventional chicken and pork, and (approximately) 16% for the organic chicken and pork. When you subtract the rates (using the exact decimal point numbers), 48% - 16%, you get 32.8%, the number that was rounded to 33% RISK DIFFERENCE....

I hope you can see that the chances of being exposed to such bacteria are actually, in common relative risk language, 300% (48%/16%), or 3 times greater, when purchasing the conventional product.I believe you are doing a disservice to your readers by stating the risk as 33%, which most people will assume is relative risk (1/3 greater risk of contamination), when in fact the relative risk is 300% greater. It is a difference of 900%! (300%/33%)...." In other words, organic meat may have many fewer bacteria than conventionally farmed meat.

My editorial comment:Moral of the story? Make sure you cook your meat well to kill all the bacteria whether you buy organic or inorganic.

Of Mice and
Men: Bruce Ames Interview Reason.com "In the 1970s, Bruce Ames was a
hero to environmentalists--the inventor of the Ames Test, which allows
scientists to test chemicals to see whether they cause mutations in bacteria
and perhaps cancer in humans. His research and testimony led to bans on such
synthetic chemicals as Tris, the flame-retardant used in children's
pajamas....Today, Ames, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at
the University of California at Berkeley, stands on the other side of the
chemical-ban debate. In 1990, he spoke out against California's Proposition
128, which would have banned many pesticides, and he has been highly
critical of the ban on Alar. The best way to prevent cancer, Ames now
believes, is to 'eat your veggies.' Any government action that makes fruits
and vegetables more expensive ultimately causes cancer."

Agave Nectar: Healthful or Harmful? Agave "nectar" is advertised as a
“diabetic friendly,” raw, and “100% natural sweetener.” Yet it is none of
these. It's note even a nectar. In spite of manufacturers’ claims, agave
“nectar” is not made from the sap of the yucca or agave plant but from the
starch of the giant pineapple-like, root bulb. The principal constituent
of the agave root is starch, similar to the starch in corn or rice, and a
complex carbohydrate called inulin, which is made up of chains of fructose
molecules. Technically a highly indigestible fiber, inulin, which does not
taste sweet, comprises about half of the carbohydrate content of agave.
(See
Agave Nectar: Worse Than We Thought.)

Biotechnology for Sustainability How genetically engineered foods
conserve soil and energy, protect air and water quality, minimize use of
toxics, and conserve biodiversity and genetic resources.

New Organic food does not reduce women's risk of cancer Women who mostly or always eat organic foods have the same overall chance of developing cancer as women who never eat it, according to a new study from the UK's University of Oxford and published in the British Journal of Cancer that followed over 600,000 middle-aged women for nearly a decade. [/new]

GM crops don’t kill kids. Opposing them does By Matt Ridley, Ottawa Citizen August 1, 2013 While Greenpeace consumed millions in lawyers’ fees, millions of children died from a vitamin A deficiency. "...not a single British journalist or blogger to my knowledge has bothered to research the facts about golden rice....Greenpeace and its pals lobbied governments to slow down the project [to develop golden rice] and drive up its costs. Their objections have been, variously, that golden rice was a corporate plot (untrue), did not produce enough vitamin A (not true), might cause health problems (a vitamin enriched bowl of rice?), might upset ecosystems (unlikely for a domesticated crop) and that capsules of vitamin A were a better bet (vitamin A capsules still reach too few people)."

A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA by Amy Harmon, New York Times, July 27, 2013. "But the idea of eating plants and animals whose DNA has been manipulated in a laboratory — called genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.’s — still spooks many people. Critics worry that such crops carry risks not yet detected, and distrust the big agrochemical companies that have produced the few in wide use. And hostility toward the technology, long ingrained in Europe, has deepened recently among Americans as organic food advocates, environmentalists and others have made opposition to it a pillar of a growing movement for healthier and ethical food choices.

Arguing that the Food and Drug Administration should require labels on food containing G.M.O.’s, one leader of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, cited “pink slime, deadly melons, tainted turkeys and BPA in our soup.”

Mr. Kress attributed the labeling campaigns to the kind of tactic any industry might use to gain a competitive edge: they were financed largely by companies that sell organic products, which stood to gain if packaging implying a hazard drove customers to their own non-G.M.O. alternatives." emphasis added.

Molecular Breeding Makes Crops Hardier and More Nutritious"...scientists are changing crops without tapping
foreign genes....Many of these crops use latent effects of genes
squirreled away in discarded seed varieties to create breeds
that at first glance seem artificial. There is corn so infused
with vitamin A precursors that it practically glows orange, rice
that can survive more than two weeks of flooded conditions, and
wheat that resists the advance of devastating aphids.".

Global
hunger worsening, warns UN The UN's annual report on global
food security confirms that more than one billion people - a
sixth of the world's population - are undernourished.

Food
production 'must rise 70%' If more land is not used for food
production now, 370 million people could be facing famine by
2050. The world population is expected to increase from the
current 6.7 billion to 9.1 billion by mid-century. Food
production will have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years
to feed the world's growing population, the United Nations food
agency predicts.

Customers call for Whole Foods boycott The Whole Foods brand
is what attracts liberals with a social conscience. The store
"sells organic vegetables, biodegradable washing powder and
sustainable seafood to a well-heeled clientele and champions its
liberal credentials." So, when CEO John Mackey wrote an opinion
piece in the
Wall Street Journal that began with a quote from
Margaret Thatcher and argued that Americans do not have an
intrinsic right to healthcare a large number of customers got on
Twitter and started a boycott. Unlike most critics of Obama's
health initiatives, Mackey offers eight alternative libertarian
reforms.

Organic
'has no health benefits' (BBC: "Researchers from the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the
evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50
years. Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the
final analysis, there were a small number of differences in
nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but
not large enough to be of any public health relevance....Overall
the report, which is published in the American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients
in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in
vitamin C, calcium, and iron. The same was true for studies
looking at meat, dairy and eggs.")

Engineered corn's vitamin boost ("A genetically modified
corn fortified with three vitamins has been created by European
researchers. The modifications make the growing corn, or maize,
produce large amounts of beta carotene and precursors of vitamin
C and folic acid. The development marks the first time any plant
has been engineered to make more than one vitamin.")

Global
crisis 'to strike by 2030' (Professor John Beddington, the
UK government chief scientist, warns that the demand for
resources will create a crisis with dire consequences by 2030.
World population will reach 8.3 billion. Demand for food and
energy will jump 50%. Demand for fresh water will increase by
30%. Beddington said that genetically-modified food could be
part of the solution.) In
a related
story, the United Nations has released a report that says
the world's population is moving toward exceeding nine billion
people by 2050 and almost a quarter of those alive will be over
60.

Organic
farms unknowingly used a synthetic fertilizer. For seven
years
a company that held 1/3 of the market in California sold
fertilizer as organic that was spiked with ammonium sulfate.
State officials knew about it in 2006, but revealed the problem
only after The Sacramento Bee got documentation through a
Public Acts request. Nobody was penalized. Makes you wonder: how
organic is organic food if the companies that sell the organic
fertilizer are in charge of certifying that their product is
organic? How many satisfied customers paid more for their
"tastier and healthier" organic food that wasn't organic?